a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2005 MILITARY 

PERSONNEL

Financial Costs and 

Loss of Critical Skills 

Due to DOD’s 

Homosexual Conduct 

Policy Cannot Be 

Completely Estimated

GAO-05-299
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-299.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Derek Stewart 

at (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-299, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2005

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills 

Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct 

Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated 

The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated 

because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and 

investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and 

discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and 

training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated that, 

over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant 

fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers 

separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated 

that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by 

occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million, 

respectively. 

Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for 

homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those 

occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO analyzed and 

selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each year from fiscal year 

1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent of the servicemembers with 

critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were 

separated within 2.5 years of service. The typical military service contract is 

for 4 years of service. Also, 322 (3 percent) of separated servicemembers had 

some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or 

Korean. A total of 98 servicemembers had completed training in an 

important language at DOD’s Defense Language Institute and received a 

proficiency score; 63 percent of such servicemembers had proficiency 

scores that were at or below the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency 

scales for listening, reading, or speaking. Students can graduate from the 

basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.

Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct by 

Fiscal Year and Military Service 

Fiscal year Army Air Force Marines Navy Totala

1994 136 185 36 258 615

1995 184 235 69 269 757

1996 199 284 60 315 858

1997 197 309 78 413 997

1998 310 414 76 345 1,145

1999 271 352 97 313 1,033

2000 574 177 104 358 1,213

2001 626 190 111 290 1,217

2002 432 125 105 222 884

2003 378 142 62 187 769

Total 3,307 2,413 798 2,970 9,488

Percent 35 25 8 31 99

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis). 

a

Percents do not equal 100 because of rounding.

From the passage of the 

homosexual conduct policy statute, 

in fiscal year 1994, through fiscal 

year 2003 the military services 

separated about 9,500 

servicemembers for homosexual 

conduct. This represents about 

0.40 percent of the 2.37 million 

members separated for all reasons 

during this period. Questions have 

been raised about the costs of 

separating servicemembers for 

homosexual conduct. Also, in the 

post-September 11th environment, 

there has been concern about the 

separation of servicemembers with 

critical occupations or important 

foreign language skills in, for 

example, Arabic. 

GAO was asked to determine 

(1) the military services’ annual 

financial costs from fiscal year 

1994 through fiscal year 2003 for 

certain activities associated with 

administering the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) policy on 

homosexual conduct—e.g., the 

recruitment and training of 

servicemembers to replace those 

separated under the homosexual 

conduct statute—and (2) the extent

to which the policy has resulted in 

the separation of servicemembers 

with critical occupations and 

important foreign language skills. 

GAO provided DOD with a draft of 

this report for comment, and DOD 

provided additional information on 

separations for homosexual 

conduct compared with other 

unprogrammed separations. 
Page i GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD’s Homosexual 

Conduct Policy Can Be Estimated 12

Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or 

Important Language Skills Have Been Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct 16

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 25

Appendix II: Financial Cost Estimate Tables 29

Appendix III: Critical Occupation Data Tables 31

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense 42

Tables Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for 

Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service 8

Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual 

Conduct with Some Proficiency in an “Important Foreign 

Language,” Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 21

Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military 

Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 29

Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted 

Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003 30

Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during 

Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 31

Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003 32

Table 7: Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations 

Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected 

Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 33

Table 8: Individuals with Training in Important Languages 

Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected 

Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 34

Table 9: Sample of Critical Occupations 35
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations 37

Table 11: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for 

Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from 

Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal Year 2003 Who Were 

Trained in a Language at the Defense Language 

Institute 39

Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for 

Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from 

Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal Year 2003, as Reported 

through Service Personnel Files 40

Figures Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 9

Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003 10

Figure 3: Separations under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy by 

Reason, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 11

Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military 

Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 13

Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted 

Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003 14

Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals 

with Critical Occupations prior to Separation for 

Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 19

Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals 

with Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to 

Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 

through 2003 20

Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals 

Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for 

Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 22

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

FY fiscal year

GAO Government Accountability Office
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 23, 2005 Letr

Congressional Requesters

In 1993 Congress enacted a homosexual conduct policy statute which 

declared that the “presence in the armed forces of persons who 

demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would 

create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order 

and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military 

capability.”1

 During the 10 years following this declaration, the military 

services separated about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct 

under the statute. This represents about 0.40 percent of the 2.37 million 

members separated for all reasons during this period. In the postSeptember 11th environment, questions have been raised about the 

financial costs associated with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) policy 

on homosexual conduct,2

 especially in light of concerns about the shortage 

of personnel with skills in critical occupations and foreign language 

training.

You asked us to determine (1) the military services’ annual financial costs 

for certain activities associated with administering DOD’s policy on 

homosexual conduct—the recruitment and training of servicemembers to 

replace those separated under the homosexual conduct statute, inquiries 

and investigations of homosexuality cases, counseling and pastoral care for 

affected individuals, separation functions, and discharge reviews—and 

(2) the extent to which the policy has resulted in the separation of 

servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign language 

skills.

To identify various types of costs associated with the policy on homosexual 

conduct, we interviewed officials from a variety of DOD and service 

offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, DOD’s Office of Accession Policy; and offices in 

the military services responsible for budget, criminal investigation, 

chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review. The Air Force, Army, and 

1

 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(15).

2

 The homosexual conduct policy statute is implemented through DOD Directives 1332.14 

(enlisted administrative separations); 1332.40 (separation of regular and reserve 

commissioned officers); and 1304.26, which specifies qualification standards for enlistment, 

appointment, and induction.
Page 2 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Navy provided data on training costs by occupation. While we requested 

the same training-cost data inputs, each of the services used their own 

methods to calculate the reported training-cost estimates. 

To address the extent to which the homosexual conduct policy statute has 

resulted in the separation of enlisted servicemembers with “critical” 

occupations, we adopted the military services’ definition of a “critical” 

occupation as an occupation that was part of the selective reenlistment 

bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus program for enlisted 

military personnel is DOD’s primary tool for addressing short-term 

retention problems in critical occupations by providing servicemembers 

who reenlisted following the expiration of their service contracts with up 

to $60,000.3

 We collected and analyzed this information for fiscal years 1994 

through 2003. Because intelligence occupations, as a group, have enduring 

importance for the military that is independent from their periodic 

inclusion in the selective reenlistment bonus program, we identified 

servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute 

who had such occupations. We defined the knowledge of a foreign 

language as “important” if it was related to (1) an occupation included in 

the selective reenlistment bonus program or (2) a language identified by 

combatant commanders and the Joint Staff as a deficiency in their periodic 

readiness assessments. We also analyzed separated members’ occupations 

and foreign language skills by their length of service. The Defense 

Manpower Data Center (Data Center) provided information on 

occupations, foreign language skills, and the length of service of separated 

servicemembers.

The principal limitation of our analysis is that, for privacy reasons, we did 

not review separated servicemembers’ personnel records, including 

training histories, which have implications for estimating training costs. 

For example, from data provided by the Data Center, we matched 

separated servicemembers to specific occupations, but we cannot state 

whether such individuals completed all of the training associated with their 

occupations. Much of our analysis depended on the quality of information 

that the services provided the Data Center with and the steps that the 

Data Center took to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. 

According to Data Center officials, since 1998, the Data Center has made a

3

 We last reported on selective reenlistment bonuses in GAO, DOD Needs More Effective 

Controls to Assess the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program, GAO-04-86

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2003).
Page 3 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

special effort to ensure that the services provide accurate information 

about the number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct.

Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems used to produce 

the cost estimates used in this report, we determined that the estimates 

were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We assessed 

reliability by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the 

systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data and the manner in which they were 

collected. We conducted our review from August 2004 through 

February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is 

presented in appendix I.

Results in Brief The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated 

because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and 

investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and 

discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs 

for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost 

DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 

1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted 

servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct.4

 DOD does calculate 

cost estimates related to recruiting enlisted personnel, which we applied in 

broad terms, for servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct 

policy statute as a replacement cost. We calculated that the estimated 

average annual cost to recruit an enlisted servicemember over the 10-year 

period to be about $10,500.5

 Most of the services were able to estimate total 

training costs—recruit (or basic) training and occupation-specific training. 

4

 We are not suggesting by this cost estimate that the services specifically recruit one-for-one 

replacements of servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct.

5

 This figure is in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. DOD compiles the basis of this cost 

estimate pursuant to DOD Instruction 1304.8 as part of its military personnel procurement 

resources report to Congress. It is constructed by averaging the DOD estimated recruiting 

costs for each year over the period. The annual DOD recruiting cost figure is calculated as a 

weighted average of the services’ recruiting costs.
Page 4 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

The estimated training costs for the occupations performed by Navy 

members separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through 

fiscal year 2003 was about $48.8 million ($18,000 per member).6

 The 

comparable Air Force cost estimate was $16.6 million ($7,400 per 

member).7

 The Army estimated that the training cost of the occupations 

performed by Army members separated for homosexual conduct over the 

10-year period was about $29.7 million ($6,400 per member).8 The Marine 

Corps was not able to estimate occupation-related training costs. However, 

other types of costs such as those related to inquiries and investigations of 

cases, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge 

reviews are not estimable because DOD does not collect data necessary to 

develop such estimates.

The military services separated 9,488 members9 pursuant to the 

homosexual conduct policy statute from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal 

year 2003, some of whom were in critical occupations or had important 

foreign language skills. Seven hundred fifty-seven (about 8 percent) of 

these separated servicemembers held critical occupations10 (“voice 

interceptor,” “data processing technician,” or “interpreter/translator”), as 

defined by the services. About 59 percent of the members with critical 

occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were separated 

during their first 2.5 years of service, which is about 1.5 years before the 

expiration of the initial service contract of most enlistees. Such contracts 

are typically for 4 years. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some 

skills in an important foreign language such

6

 The per-member cost estimates in parentheses are a weighted average of separated 

servicemembers’ occupations for which we have data (for the Navy, this is 2,706 of 2,970 

members). The weighted average is computed by multiplying the occupational training 

costs for each occupation by the proportion of total students and summing the products. By 

doing this, the occupations with the most students are weighted the most in computing the 

average.

7

 We have data for 2,241 of 2,413 Air Force members.

8

 We have data for 3,339 of 3,348 Army members.

9

 Of the 9,488 servicemembers considered in our analysis, 136 were officers.

10 The occupations most frequently cited for selective reenlistment bonuses are in 

appendix III.
Page 5 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

as Arabic, Farsi, and Korean.11 A total of 98 members separated under the 

homosexual conduct policy statute completed language training at the 

Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency rating; 62 members, 

or 63 percent, were at or below the midpoint on DOD’s listening, reading, or 

speaking proficiency scales.12

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for 

homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations 

from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. 

Background

Homosexuality and the 

Military

The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of 

military law.13 But in January 1993, President Clinton sought to fulfill a 

campaign promise to “lift the ban” on homosexuals serving in the military. 

This led to the policy familiarly known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In 

exchange for the military services’ silence (“don’t ask”) about a person’s 

homosexuality prior to induction, gay and lesbian servicemembers, as a 

condition of continued service, would have to agree to silence (“don’t tell”) 

about this aspect of their life. Failure to maintain silence can result in

11 Servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign language skills are not 

necessarily mutually exclusive groups because some critical occupations such as 

cryptologic linguists and interrogators require a foreign language skill. Thus a 

servicemember could be included in both the critical occupations and important foreign 

languages groups.

12 To assess language proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale. DOD describes the 

midpoint on this scale as “limited working proficiency plus.” According to the Defense 

Language Institute, students can graduate from the basic program with proficiencies 

somewhat below the midpoint of this scale. For foreign-language-related issues in the 

federal government, see GAO, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to 

Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002). 

We stated in this report that in fiscal year 2001, the Army had a 25 percent shortfall in 

cryptologic linguists and a 13 percent shortfall in human intelligence collectors in several 

key languages taken as a whole. 

13 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(13).
Page 6 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

separation from the military.14 In November 1993, Congress passed the 

homosexual conduct policy statute and stated that the military’s 

suspension of questioning should remain in effect unless the Secretary of 

Defense considers reinstatement of questioning necessary to effectuate the 

policy set out in the statute.15 The statute also sets out the findings of 

Congress in addition to the homosexual conduct policy. Included in the 

findings section is a description of the differences between military and 

civilian life, which forms a rationale for the institution of the policy.

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the extraordinary 

responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and critical 

role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, 

exist as a specialized society [which] is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and 

traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be 

acceptable in civilian society.16

In short, Congress indicated that because of the unique nature of military 

life, the military services may need to treat individuals who engage in 

homosexual acts, as defined by the statute, differently than they would be 

treated in civilian society. 

Separations for Homosexual 

Conduct during 1994-2003 

Period

According to our analysis of the information provided by the Defense 

Manpower Data Center, 9,488 servicemembers were separated for 

homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.17 This 

figure represents servicemembers who were on active duty at the time of 

their separation, including members of the Reserves who were on active 

duty for 31 or more consecutive days. According to a Data Center official,

14 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) and DOD Directive 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, 

Appointment and Induction (Mar. 4, 1994). For a discussion of issues associated with the 

“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, see Congressional Research Service, Homosexuals and 

U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues (Mar. 17, 1999).

15 Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 571(b)-(d), (10 U.S.C § 654, notes).

16 10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(8).

17 In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 

Readiness) stated that 9,501 servicemembers were separated for homosexual conduct 

from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. (See appendix IV.) According to the 

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 9,682 servicemembers were separated for 

homosexual conduct during the same period. The Network reports information on these 

separations at www.sldn.org. 
Page 7 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

118 reservists (other than those who served on active duty) were separated 

for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2003. 

Because these separated reservists represent a small number of total 

separations under the homosexual conduct policy statute, we did not 

include them in our analysis. This exclusion is consistent with DOD’s 

reporting practice in this area, which reports only active duty personnel 

separated for homosexual conduct. The figure also does not include 

servicemembers who were in the Army National Guard, the Air National 

Guard, or the Coast Guard. According to a Data Center official, the official 

tracking of separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997 at which 

time it was decided to include only the members of the Air Force, Army, 

Marines, and Navy on active duty. The data also do not include 

servicemembers who, for example, were separated for a “pattern of 

misconduct,” which could include several reasons for separation, including 

homosexual conduct. 

The Data Center also provided data on the characterization of service at 

separation for service members separated for homosexual conduct from 

fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. For “characterized” separations 

(5,763 servicemembers), DOD granted “honorable” separations to 4,710 

servicemembers (82 percent); “general (under honorable conditions)” 

separations to 766 (13 percent); and “under other than honorable 

conditions” separations to 287 servicemembers (5 percent). DOD also 

granted “uncharacterized,” or entry-level separations to 3,304 

servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during this 

10-year period. The Data Center also classified as “bad conduct,” the 

separation of four servicemembers, which is a type of punitive separation 

applicable to enlisted personnel only. (See Manual for Courts Martial, 

Rule 1003(b)(8).) The Data Center did not have characterization-of-service 

data for 417 servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct 

during this 10-year period.

Table 1 and figures 1 and 2 show the number of separations by military 

service, race, and gender, respectively, from fiscal year 1994 through 

fiscal year 2003. 
Page 8 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (data).

a

Percents do not equal 100 because of rounding.

Fiscal year Army Air Force Marines Navy Totala

1994 136 185 36 258 615

1995 184 235 69 269 757

1996 199 284 60 315 858

1997 197 309 78 413 997

1998 310 414 76 345 1,145

1999 271 352 97 313 1,033

2000 574 177 104 358 1,213

2001 626 190 111 290 1,217

2002 432 125 105 222 884

2003 378 142 62 187 769

Total 3,307 2,413 798 2,970 9,488

Percent 35 25 8 31 99
Page 9 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994 

through 2003 

16%

1%

Other (133)

12%

71%

Unknown (1,550)

White (6,676)

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Black (1,129)
Page 10 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years 1994 

through 2003

Note: Gender information was not available for 15 of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for 

homosexual conduct during this period. 

The homosexual conduct policy statute states three reasons for separation, 

namely, that a servicemember has (1) “engaged in, attempted to engage in, 

or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts...;” (2) “stated 

that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect...;” or 

(3) “married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same 

biological sex.” In addition, the statute provides mitigating factors that may 

prevent separation in cases arising under the first two categories.18 Figure 3 

shows the distribution of separations by these three reasons from fiscal 

year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.

18 10 U.S.C. § 654(b).

27%

73%

Female (2,586)

Male (6,887)

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).
Page 11 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 3: Separations under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason, 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Note: The figure displays information on 9,477—rather than all 9,488 servicemembers separated for 

homosexual conduct during the 10-year period—because the statutory reason for separation was 

missing for 11 former servicemembers.

Previous GAO Report on 

Costs Associated with 

DOD’s Homosexual 

Conduct Policy

In 1992 GAO reviewed DOD’s policy on homosexuality, including the costs 

associated with replacing personnel separated under the policy and the 

cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality.19 We concluded that 

“DOD does not maintain records of the costs associated with administering 

its policy [on homosexuality]; nor does it record the costs of investigating 

alleged cases of homosexuality. Accordingly, our analysis was limited to 

estimates of the costs of recruiting and training individuals to replace 

personnel discharged for homosexuality.” 

We also noted that the total cost of replacing personnel discharged for 

homosexuality would need to include other factors such as out-processing 

and court costs. 

16%

1%

Married or attempted to marry a person

known to be of the same biological sex (57)

83%

Engaged in, attempted to engage in, or 

solicited another to engage in a 

homosexual act or acts (1,520)

Stated that he or she is a homosexual,

bisexual, or words to that effect (7,900)

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

19 See GAO, Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality, 

GAO/NSIAD-92-98 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 1992).
Page 12 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

The cost data in this report and the 1992 report are not comparable 

because, at the time of the 1992 review, we did not include the estimated 

training costs for the occupations of servicemembers who were separated 

for homosexual conduct.

Costs of Certain 

Activities Associated 

with DOD’s 

Homosexual Conduct 

Policy Can Be 

Estimated

Though the total costs associated with DOD’s homosexual conduct policy 

cannot be determined because neither DOD nor the services collect 

relevant cost data, some costs can be estimated. For example, DOD does 

collect estimates of the costs to recruit enlisted servicemembers, a portion 

of which can be associated with DOD’s homosexual conduct policy. In 

addition, upon our request, the services were able to calculate the 

estimated costs associated with the training of personnel by occupation. 

However, DOD was unable to estimate the costs associated with other 

activities related to DOD’s homosexual conduct policy, namely, those 

related to investigations and commanders’ inquiries, counseling and 

pastoral care, and the processing and review of separations.

DOD Collects Data Related 

to Recruitment Costs

While not specific to individuals discharged for homosexual conduct or 

other reasons, DOD does collect data related to the cost to recruit 

servicemembers. Collected data related to DOD’s annual average recruiting 

cost estimate for enlisted servicemembers are shown in figure 4. Taken 

together, available data show that the average annual recruiting cost 

estimate for enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 

2003 was about $10,500 per member in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.20

20 This figure is an average of DOD’s reported cost per recruit. Each of the services annually 

reports recruiting costs to DOD that are weighted by the size of the force to determine an 

average cost per recruit. DOD’s reports on recruiting do not include the cost per recruit for 

officers and medical personnel.
Page 13 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 4: Average Annual Recruiting Cost Estimate by Military Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. Tabular data related to cost in this and other 

figures are in appendix II.

The total estimated cost to recruit potential replacements for the 

9,352 enlisted servicemembers separated under DOD’s homosexual 

conduct policy during the 10-year period21 was about $95 million in 

constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. (See table 4 in appendix II.) Estimated 

recruiting costs by military service are shown in figure 5.

Air Force

Source: DOD.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Dollars

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Marine Corps

Navy

Army

Fiscal year

21 Of the 9,488 servicemembers considered in our analysis, 136 were officers, and 

recruitment costs per officer were not available.
Page 14 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.

Most Military Services Can 

Compute Estimates of Costs 

to Train Personnel

With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services were able to compute 

cost estimates to train members, by occupation, upon our request. We 

asked the military services to provide total and per-capita training-cost 

estimates of the occupations performed by servicemembers who were 

separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute for fiscal years 

1994 through 2003. These figures include estimates of all training costs 

related to selected occupations, including recruit training. The Navy 

estimated that the total training cost for the 10-year period was 

$48.8 million and the estimated per-capita cost was about $18,000. The 

comparable total estimated cost for the Air Force was $16.6 million, and 

Air Force

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Dollars in thousands

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Marine Corps

Navy

Army

Fiscal year
Page 15 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

the per-capita cost estimate was $7,400. The Army estimated that the 

training cost for selected Army occupations for the 10-year period was 

about $29.7 million. The estimated average training cost of these 

occupations was about $6,400 per member. 

Other Types of Costs 

Associated with the 

Homosexual Conduct Policy 

Cannot Be Estimated

We also examined the availability of other cost-estimate data associated 

with homosexual conduct, including investigations and inquiries, 

counseling and pastoral care, processing separations from military service, 

and the review of such separations by service boards. For these cost 

categories, we found that relevant data (for example, a system that records 

the time spent on specific tasks for specific reasons) are not collected, and, 

as a result, these types of costs cannot be estimated. 

Investigations and Commanders’ 

Inquiries

Investigative cost estimates were not available for our inquiry because 

DOD law enforcement organizations do not generally investigate adult 

private consensual sexual misconduct as a matter of investigative priority 

and because of resource limitations. As the Navy notes in a policy 

statement on this subject, “if there is no victim, there is virtually no 

circumstance where the [criminal investigative service] will investigate 

sexual misconduct.” Sexual misconduct cases under these circumstances 

are referred to commanders for appropriate disposition. And because 

commanders do not record the time they spend on sexual misconduct 

inquiries, it is not possible to estimate the cost of conducting them.

Counseling and Pastoral Care The estimated cost of counseling services, including pastoral care provided 

through the chaplains corps, is also not determinable. Servicemembers 

separated for homosexual conduct are not required to seek counseling. 

Army and Navy chaplains, for example, record the types of tasks they 

perform—religious ministry, outreach, or pastoral care—but they are not 

required to compute the time they spend performing these activities. 

Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the cost of conducting such 

tasks. Furthermore, chaplains are not required to differentiate “pastoral 

care” in their task reports by topics covered such as homosexual conduct 

or sexual harassment.

Processing Separations from 

Military Service

The estimated cost of separating servicemembers also cannot be 

determined. Separation procedures are handled by salaried employees who 

work in the personnel offices of various military installations and who have 

multiple responsibilities other than coordinating a servicemember’s 
Page 16 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

separation from the military. They too do not compute their time spent on 

the various activities they perform.

Review of Separations by Service 

Boards

Servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct have 

occasionally requested service discharge review boards to review whether 

their separations were properly granted. The estimated costs associated 

with this activity also cannot be determined. Officials associated with such 

boards told us that they are not required to compute the estimated cost of 

reviewing servicemembers’ requests and that they do not record the 

number of reviews associated with DOD’s homosexual conduct policy. But 

service discharge review board officials were able to identify for us at least 

119 reviews associated with homosexual conduct (the Army, 72 reviews, 

fiscal years 1993-2003; Navy, 24 reviews, and Marines, 11 reviews, 

fiscal years 2000-2003; and Air Force, 12 reviews, fiscal years 2001-3). The 

service discharge boards conducted about 33,200 reviews during these 

same time periods.

Servicemembers 

with Critical 

Occupations and/or 

Important Language 

Skills Have Been 

Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct

From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, the military services 

separated members who had some training in critical occupations and/or 

important foreign languages pursuant to the homosexual conduct policy 

statute. Most servicemembers who had such occupations were separated 

during their first 2.5 years of service. Also, DOD separated servicemembers 

who had some language skills in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Korean. 

Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had proficiency scores 

in listening to, reading, or speaking these four languages that were above 

the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales, although students can 

graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the 

midpoint of this scale.

Most Separated 

Servicemembers Who Had 

Critical Occupations Were 

Separated during Their First 

2.5 Years of Service

Servicemembers with critical occupations were separated for homosexual 

conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. Examples of critical 

occupations, as defined by the military services, include “voice 

interceptor,” “data processing technician,” and “interpreter/translator.” The 

occupations most frequently cited as “critical,” that is, eligible for selective 

reenlistment bonuses are listed in appendix III. (See table 9.) We found that 

757 (about 8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers discharged for 

homosexual conduct during this time period held critical occupations.
Page 17 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

We determined the separation rate for these individuals at four time 

intervals: recruit training, advanced individual training, and two 1-year 

periods thereafter. The length of recruit training varies between 

the services:

• 84 days in the Marine Corps,

• 63 days in the Army,

• 56 days in the Navy, and

• 42 days in the Air Force.

Overall, 1,747 (about 19 percent) of the 9,239 servicemembers separated 

under the homosexual conduct policy statute were separated during recruit 

training.22 An additional 1,037 servicemembers (about 11 percent) were 

separated during advanced individual or occupation-related training. 

Advanced individual training occurs after recruit training, and the length of 

training varies widely by occupation. For the purpose of our analysis, we 

considered advanced individual training as 100 days following recruit 

training, which is about the average number of days for this type of 

training. For example, for the Marines, this would mean between the 85th 

and 185th day of service. Generally, 5,446 servicemembers (about 

59 percent) were separated by the end of the 365-day period following 

advanced training, or within about 1.5 years of service.

22 The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488 servicemembers who 

were separated for homosexual conduct during the 10-year period.
Page 18 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Before new recruits are sent to recruit training, they are required to take an 

enlistment oath and sign a contract to serve one of the military services for 

a specified period of time, generally from 2 to 6 years and typically for 

4 years. Consequently, a separation within 1.5 years is well before the end 

of a typical service contract for enlisted personnel. By comparison, we 

reported in 1998 that for fiscal years 1982 through 1993, about 32 percent of 

all enlistees were separated during their first term of service: 11 percent of 

enlistees were separated during their first 6 months (versus about 30 

percent of servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct 

during their first 6 months) and about 21 percent of all enlistees from their 

7th through 48th month.23

Next, we analyzed the length of service for 755 servicemembers separated 

for homosexual conduct who had critical occupations.24 The separation 

rate for this group was lower than for the total population separated for 

homosexual conduct. Generally, 267 servicemembers (about 35 percent) 

were separated within about 1.5 years of service, and 443 servicemembers 

(about 59 percent) were separated within about 2.5 years of service. 

Figure 6 shows the separation rate of servicemembers who had critical 

occupations by various time periods.

23 GAO, Military Attrition: Better Data, Coupled With Policy Changes, Could Help the 

Services Reduce Early Separations, GAO/NSIAD-98-213 (Washington, D.C., Sept. 15, 1998).

24 The Data Center has length-of-service data for 755 of the 757 separated servicemembers 

who held critical occupations.
Page 19 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual 

Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

We identified servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct 

policy statute who had intelligence-related occupations (a partial list of 

these occupations is in appendix III, table 10); not all of these occupations 

were related to the selective reenlistment bonus program. We identified 

730 separated servicemembers who held intelligence-related occupations 

from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. The separation rate is similar 

to the separation rate of servicemembers who held occupations that were 

related to a selective reenlistment bonus: 274 of these servicemembers 

(about 38 percent) were separated within about 1.5 years of service, and 

450 servicemembers (about 62 percent) were separated within about 

2.5 years of service. Figure 7 shows the separation rate of servicemembers 

with intelligence-related occupations by various time periods.

3%

Period 1: Separated within 3 months of military service (recruit training)

29%

4%

Period 2: Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service

(advanced individual training)

Period 3: Separated within 6 months to 1.5 years of military service

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

23%

41%

Period 4: Separated within 1.5 to 2.5 years of military service

Period 5: Separated after more than 2.5 years of service

59%
Page 20 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Figure 7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for 

Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Note: Parts may not sum to equal cumulative percents because of rounding. (See appendix III for 

frequency counts.)

Some Servicemembers with 

Training in Important 

Languages Were Separated 

for Homosexual Conduct 

DOD separated several hundred members with training in important 

foreign languages. During fiscal years 1994 through 2003, DOD separated 

322 servicemembers for homosexual conduct who had some skills in a 

foreign language that DOD had considered to be especially important. 

A total of 209 separated servicemembers attended the Defense Language 

Institute for training in one of these important languages. Ninety-eight of 

these 209 completed training and received a proficiency rating, and 

62 members (63 percent of the 98) had proficiency scores at or below the 

midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales for listening, reading, or 

speaking. To assess listening, reading, and speaking proficiencies, DOD 

uses an 11-point scale. DOD describes the midpoint as “limited working 

proficiency, plus.” According to the Defense Language Institute, in order to 

graduate from the basic language program, students are expected to 

achieve at least a “limited working proficiency” in listening and reading and 

4%

Period 1: Separated within 3 months of military service (recruit training)

29%

4%

Period 2: Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service

(advanced individual training)

Period 3: Separated within 6 months to 1.5 years of military service

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

24%

38%

Period 4: Separated within 1.5 to 2.5 years of military service

Period 5: Separated after more than 2.5 years of service

62%
Page 21 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

an “elementary proficiency, plus” in speaking a foreign language. Both of 

these levels are below the midpoint on DOD’s proficiency scale. Table 2 

shows the number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct 

who had some skill in an important foreign language. 

Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with Some Proficiency in an “Important Foreign 

Language,” Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: 

1. “Important” foreign languages are those for which servicemembers are eligible to receive selective 

reenlistment bonuses or those identified as “deficiencies” by combatant commanders and the Joint 

Staff in their periodic readiness assessments.

2. The table does not include the number and percentage of students with scores at the midpoint but 

includes such information only for students below or above the midpoint.

a

Percentages in parentheses. The Data Center has length-of-service data for 205 of the separated 

servicemembers who received training in an important foreign language.

We analyzed the length of service for the 205 separated servicemembers 

who had received training in an important foreign language at the Defense 

Language Institute. Figure 8 shows the separation rate for these 

Number of separated 

servicemembers

Number of students 

with listening 

proficiencya

Number of students 

with reading 

proficiencya

Number of students 

with speaking 

proficiencya

Language

Who 

attended 

Defense 

Language 

Institute 

 Language 

Institute 

students with 

proficiency 

scores

Below 

midpoint

Above 

midpoint

Below 

midpoint

Above 

midpoint

Below 

midpoint

Above 

midpoint

Arabic 54 20 10 (50) 5 (25) 8 (40) 7 (35) 20 (100) 0 (0)

Chinese 20 6 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (83) 4 (67) 1 (17)

Farsi 9 2 2 (100) 0 (0) 1 (50) 1 (50) 2 (100) 0 (0)

Korean 50 25 21 (84) 2 (8) 17 (68) 1 (4) 24 (96) 0 (0)

Russian 42 25 11 (44) 8 (32) 5 (20) 9 (36) 19 (76) 4 (16)

SerboCroatian 8 4 2 (50) 1 (25) 1 (25) 0 (0) 3 (75) 1 (25)

Spanish 24 15 5 (33) 5 (33) 1 (7) 5 (33) 12 (80) 1 (7)

Vietnamese 2 1 1 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100) 1 (100) 0 (0)

Total 

number 209 98 53 21 33 29 85 7

Percent 100 47 54 24 34 30 87 7
Page 22 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

servicemembers. About 131 (64 percent) were separated within about 

2.5 years of service.

Figure 8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals Trained in Important Languages prior to Separation for 

Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Note: No servicemember with training in critical languages was separated for homosexual conduct in 

Period 1, the first 3 months of military service, which generally corresponds to recruit training. 

We further analyzed the occupations of the 54 separated servicemembers 

who received training in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. We were 

able to match 42 (about 78 percent) with an occupation that utilizes a 

foreign language, many in intelligence-related occupations such as 

“cryptologic linguist” or “communications interceptor.” However, these 

42 members might have had limited experience in their occupation because 

36 servicemembers (about 86 percent of the 42) were listed as “helpers” or 

“apprentices,” or had the lowest skill level associated with the occupation.

30%

1%

Period 2: Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service

(advanced individual training)

Period 3: Separated within 6 months to 1.5 years of military service

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

33%

36%

Period 4: Separated within 1.5 to 2.5 years of military service

Period 5: Separated after more than 2.5 years of service

64%
Page 23 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for 

homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations 

from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. DOD also provided technical 

changes, which we made where appropriate. The department’s written 

comments are incorporated in their entirety in appendix IV.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 

distribution of this report until 3 days from its issue date. At the time, we 

will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries 

of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and 

interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 (Stewartd@gao.gov) or George 

Poindexter, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7213 (Poindexterg@gao.gov), 

if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major 

contributors to this report were Lisa Brown, Alissa Czyz, Joe Faley, Nicole 

Gore, Catherine Humphries, Tom Mills, Charles Perdue, and Jen Popovic.

Derek B. Stewart, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 24 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Martin T. Meehan

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Terrorism,

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Neil Abercrombie

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Allen

The Honorable Robert Andrews

The Honorable Tammy Baldwin

The Honorable Danny Davis

The Honorable Susan A. Davis

The Honorable Diana DeGette

The Honorable William Delahunt

The Honorable Eliot Engel

The Honorable Barney Frank

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee

The Honorable James R. Langevin

The Honorable Carolyn Maloney

The Honorable George Miller

The Honorable Jim Moran

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

The Honorable Christopher Shays

The Honorable Adam Smith

The Honorable Pete Stark

The Honorable Lynn Woolsey

House of Representatives
Page 25 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To conduct our work, we interviewed individuals at a variety of 

Department of Defense (DOD) and service offices, including the office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DOD’s Office 

of Accession Policy; DOD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; and offices in 

the military services responsible for budget, investigation, chaplaincy, 

separation, and discharge review.

To determine the estimated financial costs associated with DOD’s 

homosexual conduct policy, we obtained information on the estimated 

costs to recruit enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 

2003 from DOD’s Office of Accession Policy. DOD includes this information 

in the Military Personnel Procurement Resources Report. DOD calculates 

recruiting cost per enlisted member by dividing a military service’s total 

expenditures for recruiting enlisted personnel by the service’s total number 

of accessions. Recruiting expenditures include, but are not limited to, the 

costs associated with recruiting personnel, enlistment bonuses, 

advertising, communications, recruiting support, and recruiting command 

resources. We computed an average of the reported figures for fiscal years 

1994 through 2003. DOD does not include per-capita recruiting costs 

associated with commissioned officers in its procurement resources 

report.

We also requested that each of the four military services provide estimated 

training cost information for occupations performed by enlisted 

servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal 

year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In order to provide total estimated 

training costs, we asked the services to provide estimates of both fixed and 

variable costs1

 associated with each occupation. Estimated occupationrelated training costs include, but are not limited to, military and civilian 

pay for instructors, operations and maintenance, student transportation, 

ammunition, supplies, and flying costs (if any). We reviewed the services’ 

general methodology for developing training-cost estimates and found

1

 Total costs are the total costs of producing any given level of output. Total cost can be 

divided in two parts: fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs are those that do not vary 

with output. All costs that vary directly with output are variable costs. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

them acceptable. We used weighted averages2 to estimate the average 

per-member occupational training costs for the Air Force, Army, and Navy. 

The Marine Corps was unable to provide this information. Additionally, we 

excluded from our analysis the training costs associated with medical and 

health-care-related occupations because the services could not reasonably 

estimate them. Service officials told us that the length of training and other 

factors necessary to achieve a health-care-related proficiency varies widely, 

as do the costs associated with them.

To assess the extent to which DOD separated members with 

critical occupations or important foreign language skills, we obtained 

occupation- and foreign-language-related data (for fiscal years 1994-2003) 

on servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct from the Defense 

Manpower Data Center’s Active Duty Personnel Transaction File, which 

is a compilation of data provided by each of the military services. Our 

analysis was limited to active duty personnel and did not include 

118 reservists who were separated for homosexual conduct because they 

represent a small number of total separations under the homosexual 

conduct policy statute. This is consistent with DOD’s reporting practice in 

this area. The department reports only active duty personnel separated for 

homosexual conduct. The Data Center provided information on an 

individual’s branch of service, occupation, rank, length of time in service, 

and language skills.

With respect to the occupational data, we adopted the military services’ 

definition of a “critical” occupation as an occupation that was part of the 

selective reenlistment bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus 

program for enlisted military personnel is DOD’s primary tool for 

addressing short-term retention problems in critical occupations by 

providing servicemembers who reenlist following the expiration of their 

service contracts with up to $60,000. The Army, Marines, and Navy list their 

10 most critical occupations in their annual budget justifications. The Air 

Force, however, does not prioritize its critical occupations in its budget 

justification. The services determine reenlistment bonus amounts 

by multiplying (1) a servicemember’s current monthly basic pay by 

2

 In calculating a weighted average, each value is multiplied by its “weight,” and this product 

is summed for all values. The “weight” is derived as a proportion of the total. With respect to 

a service’s occupational training costs, the costs of training for an occupation (the value) 

would be multiplied by that occupation’s weight (that occupation’s proportion of total 

servicemembers for all occupations). This product would be summed for all occupations to 

calculate a service’s weighted average of occupational training costs.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

(2) the member’s number of additional years of obligated service by (3) a 

bonus multiple that can range from 0.5 to 15. For the Air Force, we used 

this bonus multiple to determine a list of the 10 most critical occupations 

for each year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003; the Air Force 

occupations with the 10 largest bonus multipliers in a specific year were 

deemed by us to be the most critical. For example, in 1 year we included 

Air Traffic Control in the list of the top 10 Air Force occupations because it 

had a bonus multiplier of 7, which is the largest multiplier that the Air 

Force used from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In contrast, 

Pararescue, and all other occupations that had a bonus multiplier of 5 for 

that year, were not included on our list of most critical Air Force 

occupations. This is because there were at least 10 Air Force occupations 

whose bonus multipliers were 5.5, 6, or 7. Note that, in other years, 

depending on the bonus multipliers for all jobs, Pararescue could be 

included as an occupation on the “top ten” list. 

To assess the extent to which DOD separated individuals for homosexual 

conduct in intelligence-related occupations, we compiled a list of servicelevel occupation titles that could be categorized as “intelligence-related” 

by their relationship to DOD’s occupational codes. DOD occupation codes 

are a way of organizing service-level occupations into general categories. 

Each separated servicemember whose occupation matched an 

intelligence-related DOD occupational code was considered to have 

an intelligence-related occupation.

Finally, with respect to separations for homosexual conduct of individuals 

with important language skills, we identified separated servicemembers 

with foreign language skills using language data drawn from the Defense 

Manpower Data Center. The Data Center provided two types of language 

data. The first type addresses the language skills of servicemembers who 

attended the Defense Language Institute’s Foreign Language Center. 

Language proficiency data for these students are based on the Defense 

Language Proficiency Test score they received when tested at the 

completion of their course of study. The other type of language data in the 

active duty file is information reported to the Data Center by the services. 

The language proficiency data in this file are based on multiple sources—

from servicemembers themselves or from the official Defense Language 

Institute proficiency test.

Although we did not validate the budget/financial systems and processes 

used to calculate the cost estimates used in this report, we determined that 

the estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. As 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

previously discussed, we assessed the reliability of these data by 

(1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that 

produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about 

the data to determine the steps taken to ensure the accuracy and 

completeness of the data.

We assessed the reliability of the Defense Manpower Data Center’s Active 

Duty Military Personnel Transaction file by (1) performing electronic 

testing of the required data elements, (2) reviewing existing information 

about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing 

agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We conducted 

our review from August 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 29 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Appendix II

Financial Cost Estimate Tables ApendxiI

Estimated Cost of 

Recruiting 

Servicemembers 

Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct

Table 4 shows that the total estimated cost to recruit potential 

replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual 

conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 was about 

$95 million. To compute this cost, we multiplied the number of 

servicemembers as shown in table 1 (less the number of officers) by the 

data in table 3 for each service and each year. For example, we multiplied 

the number of Army members who were separated for homosexual 

conduct in fiscal year 1994—136—from table 1 by the Army’s average 

annual recruiting cost for fiscal year 1994 ($9,597) from table 3 in order to 

compute $1.305 million in table 4. The sum of these calculations for the 

10-year period is about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.

Table 3: Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Source: DOD.

Constant FY 2004 dollars

Fiscal year

Service 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Army $9,597 $11,053 $10,460 $11,547 $13,059 $14,278 $14,078 $15,509 $16,200 $16,536

Navy 6,937 8,214 8,573 8,466 8,803 10,124 10,162 11,221 13,121 13,394

Marine 

Corps 7,362 5,732 6,595 6,313 6,560 8,208 8,353 8,831 8,453 9,356

Air Force 4,832 4,805 4,873 5,306 5,126 6,636 8,244 9,928 9,934 9,376

DOD 8,315 8,953 7,606 9,519 8,928 10,134 10,913 12,906 13,715 14,206
Appendix II

Financial Cost Estimate Tables

Page 30 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Table 4: Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 

through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars.

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year Army Air Force Marines Navy Total

1994 $1,305 $879 $265 $1,755 $4,204

1995 2,023 1,086 395 2,152 5,656

1996 2,040 1,345 389 2,632 6,406

1997 2,263 1,613 492 3,446 7,814

1998 4,035 2,097 499 2,958 9,589

1999 3,855 2,289 788 3,159 10,091

2000 8,110 1,443 860 3,587 14,000

2001 9,585 1,807 980 3,221 15,593

2002 6,638 1,192 879 2,860 11,569

2003 6,091 1,322 580 2,478 10,471

Total $45,945 $15,073 $6,127 $28,248 $95,393

Percent 48 16 6 30 100
Page 31 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables ApendxiI

Length of Service of 

Servicemembers Who 

Were Separated for 

Homosexual Conduct

Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct were separated 

within 1.5 years of entering military service (approximately periods 1-3 in 

table 5). The first and second periods on the table correspond to different 

phases of enlisted personnel training: recruit training (Period 1) and 

advanced individual training (Period 2), when a servicemember is initially 

trained in an occupation. The exact number of days in each period varies 

by service.1

Table 5: Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488 servicemembers who were 

separated for homosexual conduct during the 10-year period.

a

Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

1

 Period 1, recruit training, includes the following intervals for each of the services: Marines, 

0 to 84 days; Army, 0 to 63 days; Navy, 0 to 56 days; and Air Force, 0 to 42 days. Period 2, the 

average time for advanced individual training (100 days), includes the following intervals for 

each of the services: Marines, 85 to 185 days; Army, 64 to 164 days; Navy, 57 to 157 days; and 

Air Force, 43 to 143 days. Period 3 spans 1 year from the end of the advanced individual 

training period, and period 4 spans 1 year from the end of period 3. Period 5 includes all 

subsequent time periods.

Number

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: subsequent 

periods Total

Marine Corps 153 76 289 123 139 780

Army 583 407 918 522 811 3,241

Navy 47 260 1,154 568 886 2,915

Air Force 964 294 301 245 499 2,303

Total number 1,747 1,037 2,662 1,458 2,335 9,239

Percent 19 11 29 16 25 100

Percenta

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5:

 subsequent periods

Marine Corps 20 10 37 16 18 101

Army 18 13 28 16 25 100

Navy 2 9 40 19 30 100

Air Force 42 13 13 12 22 102
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 32 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Length of Service of 

Separated Servicemembers 

Who Had Critical 

Occupations

Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had critical 

occupations were separated within 2.5 years of entering the military. Two 

and a half years corresponds approximately to the end of the 4th period in 

table 6.

Table 6: Individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 

through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Number

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: 

subsequent periods Total

Marine Corps 0 1 0 0 3 4

Army 21 19 47 38 39 164

Navy 0 1 135 102 207 445

Air Force 0 9 34 36 63 142

Total number 21 30 216 176 312 755

Percent 3 4 29 23 41 100

Percenta

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: 

subsequent periods

Marine Corps 0 25 0 0 75 100

Army 13 12 29 23 24 101

Navy 0 <1 30 23 47 101

Air Force 0 6 24 25 44 99
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 33 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Length of Service of 

Separated Servicemembers 

Who Had IntelligenceRelated Occupations

Most servicemembers who had intelligence-related occupations were 

separated for homosexual conduct within approximately 2.5 years of 

entering military service. Two and a half years corresponds approximately 

to the end of the 4th period as shown in table 7.

Table 7: Individuals with Intelligence-Related Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Number

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: 

subsequent periods Total

Marine Corps 0 0 14 14 20 48

Army 32 23 84 49 62 250

Navy 0 1 84 74 129 288

Air Force 0 3 33 39 69 144

Total number 32 27 215 176 280 730

Percent 4 4 29 24 38 100a

Percenta

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: 

subsequent periods

Marine Corps 0 0 29 29 42 100

Army 13 9 34 20 25 101

Navy 0 <1 29 26 45 101

Air Force 0 2 23 27 48 100
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 34 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Length of Service of 

Separated Servicemembers 

Who Had Important Foreign 

Language Skills

The same pattern is true for servicemembers separated for homosexual 

conduct who were trained in an important language. Most servicemembers 

were separated by the end of the 4th period—or approximately 2.5 years 

after entering military service—as shown in table 8.

Table 8: Individuals with Training in Important Languages Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Number

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: subsequent 

periods Total

Marine Corps 0 0 1 3 2 6

Army 0 0 23 28 28 79

Navy 0 0 14 9 12 35

Air Force 0 2 24 27 32 85

Total number 0 2 62 67 74 205

Percent 0 1 30 33 36 100

Percenta

Service

Period 1: recruit 

training

Period 2: advanced 

individual training

Period 3: next 

365 days

Period 4: next 

365 days

Period 5: subsequent 

periods

Marine Corps 0 0 17 50 33 100

Army 0 0 29 35 35 99

Navy 0 0 40 26 34 100

Air Force 0 2 28 32 38 100
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 35 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Occupations Most 

Frequently Cited for 

Selective Reenlistment 

Bonuses

A sample of occupations eligible to receive a selective reenlistment bonus 

is shown in table 9. Because each service’s designation of critical 

occupations changes annually, the column on the far right of the table 

shows the number of times from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 

that an occupation appeared on the military services’ “top ten” list of 

critical occupations.

Table 9: Sample of Critical Occupations

Service

Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective 

reenlistment bonuses, FY 1994-2003 

Total number of years in which the occupation 

received a selective reenlistment bonus 

Army Automatic Test Equipment Operator 4

Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewman 4

Noncommunications Interceptor/Analyst 4

Special Forces Communications Sergeant 4

Voice Interceptor (Persian/Vietnamese) 4

Aircraft Pneudraulics Repairer 3

Broadcast Journalist 3

Diver 3

Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialist 3

Interrogator (Chinese/Korean) 3

OH-58D Helicopter Repairer 3

Petroleum Supply Specialist 3

Psychological Operations Specialist 3

Radar Repair 3

Satellite Communications Systems Operator-Maintainer 3

Signal Intelligence Analyst (Chinese/Korean) 3

Navy Aviation Structural Mechanic (Equipment) 4

Aviation Structural Mechanic (Structural) 4

Cryptologic Technician (Technical) 4

Data Processing Technician 4

Electrician's Mate (Nuclear Field) 4

Fire Control Technician 4

Machinist's Mate (Nuclear Field) 4

Mineman 4

Missile Technician 4

Operations Specialist 4
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 36 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Sources: Service-submitted budget justification (data); GAO (analysis).

Air Force Combat Controller 10

Air Traffic Control 8

Communication Computer System Programmer 8

Far East Crypto Linguist 8

Mid East Crypto Linguist 8

Pararescue 8

Slavic Crypto Linguist 8

Communication Computer System Control 6

Electronics Signals Intelligence Exploitation 6

Interpreter/Translator 6

Marines Aircraft Flight Engineer, KC-130 8

Electronic Switching Equipment Technician 6

Ground Mobile Forces Satellite Communications Technician 5

Air Command and Control Electronics Operator 4

Computer Technician 4

Consolidated Automatic Support System Technician 4

Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic 4

Surface Air Defense Systems Acquisition Technician 4

Technical Controller 4

Aircraft Navigation Systems Technician Identification Friend or 

Foe/Radar/Tactical Air Navigation 3

Computer System Technician, Honeywell Data Processing 

System 6 3

Counterintelligence Marine 3

Cryptologic Linguist, Korean 3

Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish 3

Field Artillery Radar Operator 3

Interrogation-Translation Specialist 3

Marine Air Ground Task Force Plans/Operations Specialist 3

Nonappropriated Funds Audit Technician 3

Radio Technician 3

Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment Technician 3

Weather Forecaster 3

(Continued From Previous Page)

Service

Most frequently cited occupations receiving selective 

reenlistment bonuses, FY 1994-2003 

Total number of years in which the occupation 

received a selective reenlistment bonus 
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 37 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Examples of Intelligence-Related 

Occupations

The following is a sample of the type of intelligence-related occupations 

that we included in our analysis. All the occupations in table 10 have an 

intelligence-related DOD occupation code, which was the criterion used to 

identify intelligence-related occupations.

Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations 

Service Occupation

Air Force Airborne Far East Crypto Linguist

Airborne Romance Crypto Linguist

Airborne Slavic Crypto Linguist

Airborne Warning Command and Control System

Electronic System Security Assessment

Far East Crypto Linguist (Chinese)

Far East Crypto Linguist (Korean)

Far East Crypto Linguist (Vietnamese)

Imagery Interpreter

Intelligence Applications

Interpreter/Translator

Mid East Crypto Linguist

Mid East Crypto Linguist (Arabic)

Mid East Crypto Linguist (Hebrew)

Mid East Crypto Linguist (Persian)

Signals Intelligence Analysis

Army Counterintelligence Agent

Imagery Ground Station Operator

Intelligence Analyst

Interrogator (Chinese/Korean)

Psychological Operations Specialist

Signal Intelligence Analyst (Chinese/Korean)

Voice Interceptor (Persian/Vietnamese)
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 38 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

Tables 11 and 12 describe characteristics of the language speakers in the 

population of those separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 

1994 through fiscal year 2003, as reported by the Data Center. The table 

lists the median proficiency level for all speakers of each language. DOD’s 

language proficiency scale includes 11 possible values, ranging from 00 to 

as high as 50.2

 In tables 11 and 12, the median proficiency is the middle 

value if all proficiency scores for students in that language are placed in 

numerical order. 

Marine Corps Air Command and Control Electronics Operator

Airborne Radio Operator/Loadmaster

Counterintelligence Marine

Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic

Cryptologic Linguist, Korean

Cryptologic Linguist, Persian, Semitic

Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish

Fleet Satellite Communications Terminal Operator

High Frequency Communication Central Operator

Imagery Interpretation Specialist

Intelligence Specialist

Interrogation-Translation Specialist

Non-Morse Intercept Operator/Analyst

Navy Air Traffic Controller

Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Operator

Cryptologic Technician (Collection)

Cryptologic Technician (Interpretative)

Cryptologic Technician (Technical)

Electronic Warfare Technician

Operations Specialist

Radioman, Surface Warfare

(Continued From Previous Page)

Service Occupation

2

 DOD’s language proficiency scale is as follows: 00—no proficiency; 06—memorized 

proficiency; 10—elementary proficiency; 16—elementary proficiency, plus; 20—limited 

working proficiency; 26—limited working proficiency, plus; 30—general professional 

proficiency, plus; 36—general professional proficiency plus; 40—advanced professional 

proficiency; 46—advanced professional proficiency, plus; and 50—functionally native 

proficiency. 
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 39 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Two tables are provided rather than one because the service-provided data 

set contains an unknown mixture of self-assessed and Defense Language 

Proficiency Test data. For the language institute-trained population of 

language speakers, however, all proficiency data resulted from tests. Note 

the high percentages of service members in both groups without a reported 

proficiency score; individuals with no data available are included as those 

without any recorded proficiency in speaking, listening, or reading. This 

means that the Data Center did not have any information from any source 

on the servicemembers’ ability to use their reported language. 

Table 11: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 

1994 through Fiscal Year 2003 Who Were Trained in a Language at the Defense Language Institute

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: N/A = not available.

Language

Total number of 

servicemembers

Median 

proficiency

Number (and percent) of reported 

servicemembers with no proficiency data 

available 

Arabic, Modern Standard 54 20 34 (63)

Chinese, Mandarin 20 26 14 (70)

French 3 26 0

German 1 20 0

Hebrew 2 N/A 1 (50)

Korean 50 20 25 (50)

Persian, Iranian (includes Farsi) 9 20 7 (78)

Russian 42 26 17 (40)

Serbo-Croatian 8 26 4 (50)

Spanish 24 26 8 (35)

Tagalog 1 26 0

Vietnamese, Hanoi 2 20 1 (50)

Total 216 111 (51)
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 40 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 

1994 through Fiscal Year 2003, as Reported through Service Personnel Files

Language 

Total number of 

servicemembers

Median 

proficiency

Number (and percent) of 

reported 

servicemembers with no 

proficiencya

Number (and percent) of 

reported servicemembers with 

no proficiency data availablea

Achinese 2 0 2 (100) 0

Amashi 1 0 1 (100) 0

Arabic, Modern Standard 5 20 1 (20) 2 (40)

Chinese, Cantonese 2 30 1 (50) 1 (50)

Chinese, Mandarin 2 N/A 1 (50) 2 (100)

Danish 1 N/A 0 1 (100)

French 13 26 5 (38) 4 (31)

German 10 16 5 (50) 2 (20)

German, Bavarian 1 0 1 (100) 0

Haitian, Creole 1 50 0 0

Hungarian 2 26 0 2 (100)

Indonesian 1 30 0 0

Italian 5 50 1 (20) 1 (20)

Japanese 1 10 0 0

Korean 5 20 0 2 (40)

Old High German 1 10 0 0

Persian, Iranian (includes 

Farsi) 1 20 1(100) 1 (100)

Polish 1 N/A 1 (100) 0

Portuguese, Brazilian 1 N/A 0 1 (100)

Russian 9 N/A 1 (11) 3 (33)

Serbo-Croatian 3 20 0 0

Spanish 50 20 18 (36) 30 (60)

Spanish, American 59 30 6 (10) 4 (7)

Spanish, Castilian 2 20 0 0

Spanish, Creole 1 30 0 0
Appendix III

Critical Occupation Data Tables

Page 41 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Sources: Defense Manpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: N/A = not available

a

Individuals received three separate proficiency scores: one in reading, one in listening, and one in 

speaking. If any one of these three scores indicated that the individual was tested but had no 

proficiency, the individual is counted in the “no proficiency” column. Likewise, if one of the three scores 

was not available, the individual is listed in the “no data available” column.

Tagalog 8 50 1 (12) 1 (12)

Urdu 1 50 0 0

Vietnamese, Central 1 50 0 0

Total 190 46 (35) 57 (30)

(Continued From Previous Page)

Language 

Total number of 

servicemembers

Median 

proficiency

Number (and percent) of 

reported 

servicemembers with no 

proficiencya

Number (and percent) of 

reported servicemembers with 

no proficiency data availablea
Page 42 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Defense

(350496) Page 43 GAO-05-299 Military Personnel
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00